A t t he r evoca t i on he ar i ng , t he def endan t t es t i f

i ed t hat hi s l ega l name i s C l i f t on R ey nol d. W e us e t he name t hat 1

is o n the ind ic tm e n t. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

8, 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CL IFTO N E . L EE

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 02-05035 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2006-01849-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Augu st 3, 2007

T h e d ef en d an t , C l i ft o nE

. L ee , ap p ea l s t h e t ri al co u rt ’s o rd er s en t en ci n g h i m t o t en y ea rs as a R an ge 1 I I , mu lti ple of

fe nd e r a ft e r r e vo kin g his c omm un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e fo r h is c on vic t i o n f o r t he sa le of le ss t ha n o ne -h a lf

g ra m of co c a ine , a Clas s C fe lony

. Th e de fe nd ant w a s o ri g ina lly se nte nc e d to fi ve y e ars a s a

Rang e I , s tand ard

of fe nd e r. Th e de fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in

se nte nc inghim

wi thi n a hig he r r ang e tha

n h e wa s o ri g ina lly

se nte nc e d. We a g re e , and we re ve rs e the judg ment of the trial c ourt. We rem an d this case f or sentenc ing the defe ndant as a Rang e I offe nder.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt R ever sed, Case Re m anded

J OS EP H M. T I PTON , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

Robert Wils on J ones, Dist rict P ublic Def ender , and Ga

rland Ing ram Er g uden (on a ppeal) and Robert Hay es Gowe n (at trial) , Assistant Publ ic Def ender s, for the a

ppellant, Clifton E. L ee.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rr y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gi b b o ns, District Attorney Gene ral; and A my

P. W eirich, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.

OP IN ION

The de fenda

nt was indicted in 20 0 2 o n fi v e counts: (1) sale of one -half g ram or mor e of

coca ine; (2) possession of one-ha lf g ram or more of coca ine wit h the i ntent to sell; (3) possession of one-half gra

m or m ore of coca ine wit h the intent to deliver; (4) possession of one-ha lf ounce or more of marijuana with the i ntent to sell; and (5) possession of one -half ounc e or more of marijuana-2-

with the intent to deliver. He pl ed g uilty to the sale of le ss than one-ha lf g ram of c ocaine and possession with intent to s ell one-ha lf ounce or more of marijuana , and the r emaining counts wer e dismiss ed. He was sentenc ed as a Rang e I offe nder to c oncurr ent terms of pr obation of five year s and one y ear

.
The re cord indicates that on May 28, 2004, the trial court revoke d the def endant’ s probation afte r the de fenda

nt r ece ived new drug -re lated char g es and failed to pa y court costs. I n J anuar

y 2004, the tr ia l c ourt

or de re d th e de fe nd ant to se rv e the re ma ind e r o f h is s e nte nc e in c omm un ity c or re c tio ns

. Th e fo llo wi ngy e ar, ho we ve r, the state fi le d a pe tit ion t o revo ke th e de fe nd ant’ s c omm un ity

co rr ec t i o n s s en t en ce , al l egi n g:

Mr. Clifton L ee missed 12 appointments with his Case Offic er. O n Fe bruar y 28, 2006 Mr. Clifton L ee was rearr ested for the charg es of Aggr av at edAs s au l t ; Do m es t i c A s s au l t -B o d i l y Ha rm and Violation of Protection Ord er Misdeme anor . . . . Mr . L ee sig ned Admission Statement to using Marijuana on 4-5-05. Mr. L ee tested positive for C o ca i ne on 12-6- 05. Mr. L ee w as instructed to star t I ntensive I npatient DrugTreatment with Me mphis Recovery . He wa s admitted into resi dential treatment for alc ohol and drugaddiction on J anuar y 4, 2006 and lef

t treatment a g ainst staff a dvice on J anuar y 6, 2006. Mr. L ee did not attend 3 AA meeting s per wee k as instructed by the J udg e. L ast employ

ment verific ation was provide d on 8-20-05. Mr. L e e wa s o rd e re d to pa

y $2 5 p e r m on th o n Co ur

t Co st/ F ine s. He pa id $125 toward Court Cost/Fines leaving a delinquent ba lance of $125 on Court Cost/ Fines a

nd was $45 de linquent on t h e p ayment of Supervision Fee s and wa s $90 delinquent on the pay ment of Criminal Com pe ns a tio n F e e s.

At his revocation hearing , the def endant s ti p u la te d to the alleg ations contained in the pe tition. He a g ree d that he violated the c onditions of his probation, although he said he did not smoke marijuana while he was on probation but just admitted to it beca use someone ha d blown smoke up his nose. He a dmitted that he left the residential drug treatment pr og ram afte r just two day s there. He sa id h e wa s h a vin g pr ob le ms w ith hi s wi fe, had a lot on his min d, and

wa nte d ti me to h ims e lf “to g et [him self] toge ther a nd [hi s] m ind rig ht and then g o back to wor k the prog ram.” He sa id that althoug h the cour

t ordere d him to attend AA meeting s three times per wee k, he attende d twice pe r
wee k beca

use of a conflict with his GED course s. He a sked for the merc y

of the c ourt and said he th o u g h t h e c o u ld “ d o b e tt e r th is ti me ” b e c a u s e h e w a s n o lo n g e r inv o lv e d w it h h is w if e an d had made up his mind that he wa nted to improve himself.

On cross-examination, the def endant a dmitted that this was the third time he a sked the c ourt for lenie ncy

in this case and that he promised the c ourt befor e that he w ou l d improve his life. He admitted that he sold coc aine while he was on probation, but he denied using or selling c ocaine since his probation was re voked. He acknow ledg ed that he had been a rre sted six ty -two times for of fense s-3-

including unla

wful possession of a f

irea rm, child abuse and neg lect, assault, violation of probation, ag gra v at ed as s ault , and thef t. He said, thoug h, that some of the c harg es ag ainst him had been dismiss ed.

The trial c ourt revoke d the def endant’ s community

corr ections sentenc e and or dere d a new sentenc e of te n y ear s as a Rang e I Ioffe nder. The trial court rejec ted def ense c ounsel’s conte ntion that Tenne ssee law

prohibits the trial court fr om resente ncing a def endant a fter r ev o ca t i on of a community

corr ections sentenc e to a highe r sentenc ing rang e than that within whic h the def endant was orig inally

convicted. T he cour

t stated:

[H] e recei vedfi ve y ears . T he [ ori ginal ] range wo ul d al low me to s e nte nc e him

to s ix. B ut t o be ha

nd c uf fe d b y tha t w ou ld a bs olute ly make a mocker y out of the whole sentenc ing sy stem, and I think it’s sort of g etting c lose to that any way with the statute rea ding a s it does with the require ment of stree t time.

But, nonetheless, I think that - I think that a s en t ence
c omm e ns ur a te wi th h is c on du c t bo th at th e tim e he c omm itt e d th is offe nse for which he’s incar cer ated a nd commensurate with the fa ct that he tot a lly

ig no re d ef

fo rt s to hel p him ad dr e ss h is d ru g pr ob le m - eff orts to help him ge t his GED - get employ ment - g et bac k in the

wo rk fo rc e - b e c ome a pr od

uc tiv e c iti zen . H e tot a lly ig no re d th os e eff orts, and, instead, continued his c onduct and continued to pick up

new c ases. I ’m g oing to incr ease his sentence to ten y ea rs from the five to ten.

On appe al, the def

endant doe s not challeng e the r evocation but argues that the trial cour t’s

rese ntencinghim as a R an ge I I offe nder w as prohibited by State v. Patty , 922 S.W .2d 102 (Tenn. 1995). The state counter s that the sent en ce i s proper beca use the de fenda

nt’s criminal history qualified him as a Rang e I I offe nder a nd that the community

corr ections statutes have been a mended since Patty

to allow such an inc rea se.
Appellate r eview of

the leng th, rang e, or manner of service of a sentence imposed by the trial

c ourt is d e no vo on the re c or d with a pr e su mpt ion that the tr ia l court ’s de te rm inatio ns are c or re c t. T. C.A . § 40 -3 5- 40 1( d) . H ow e ve r, if “ it ap pe ars that the tr ia l court ha s fa ile d to c on sid e r o r c omp ly with the statutory

provisions gove rning sentenc ing, a ppellate r eview is d e novo on the re cord w ithout a pre sumption of corre ctness.” State v. Samuels, 44 S.W .3d 489, 492 (Tenn. 2001) (citing State v. Winfield, 23 S .W.3d 279, 283 (Tenn. 2000)).

When a trial cour

t revoke s a def

endant’ s community

corr ections sentenc e,

the cour t may rese ntence the def

endant to any

appropr iate sente ncing alternative, including incarc eration, for any period of time up to the-4- ma ximumse nte nc e pr ov ide d f or the of fe ns e c omm itt e d, le ss a

ny tim e actua lly serve d in any community -base d alternative to incarc eration. The re sentenc ing sha ll be conducte d in compliance with § 40- 35-210.
T.C.A. § 40-36-106( e)( 4). The tr ial court may impose a sentence gr eate r than the or igina l sentence without offendingthe double jeopa rdy provisions of either the United States Constit ution or Tenne ssee Constit ution. State v. Griff ith, 787 S.W .2d 340, 341-42 (Te nn. 1990). Howe ver, be fore order ing a new se ntence , the trial court must c onduct a sentenc ing he aringpursuant to the princ iples of our Sentenc ing Re form Ac t. State v. Cooper, 977 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Relat i v e t o t h e sente ncing hear ing, the rec ord “sha ll include specific finding s of fa ct upon which application of the sentenc ing pr inciples was ba sed.” T.C.A. § 40- 35-209(c ). T h e purpose of the statutory require ments is to ensure that a proper rec ord is made f or appe llate re view. State v. Ervin, 939 S.W .2d 581, 584 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)

.

I n Patty , our supre me cour t held that section 40-36-106( e)( 4) did not authorize resente ncing in a hig he r r ang e tha

n th a t of the orig ina l se nte nc e . Patty , 9 22 S.W. 2d a t 10 3. I n th a t c a se , Patty orig inally rec eived two- y ear

Rang e I sentenc es for

eac h of the two Class E fe lonies for whic h he wa s convicted. A fter r evoking his community corr ections sentenc e, the tria l court in cr eased the defe ndant’s sente nces to four y ear s eac h, even thoug h the m axim um sentenc e for a R ang e I offe nder convicted of

a Class E fe lony

was two y ear s. The supre me cour t upheld this court’s dec ision that the trial cour

t’s rese ntencingwas not authorized, holding “that a trial judge imposing a ne w sentenc e
as a r es u l to f a co m m u n i t y co rr ec t i o n s fa i l u re i s b o u n d t o s en t en ce t h e d ef

en d an twi t h i nt h e r an ge of the orig inal sentenc e.” I d. at 104.

Th e state a tte mpt s to dis tin g uis h Pa tty fr om the pr e se nt c a se by no tin g tha t in the int e rm e diate ap p el l at e d ec i s i o ni nP at t y , t h i s co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e de fe n d an t “w as , at al l t i m es p er t i n en t , a R an ge Iof fe nd e r. ” Pa tty , 9 22 S.W. 2d a t 10 2. I n con tr ast , th e de fe nd ant i n th e pr e se nt c a se a c tua lly qualified as a Rang e I Ioffe nder but wa s g iven Rang e I status as a re sult of his plea ag ree ment. The state ar g u e s th a t t

h e “ tr u e is s u e ” in

Patt y w a s th e n ar

r o wo n e o f

w h e th e r a d e f e n d an t c a nbe sentenc ed beyond t h e ra n ge for which he qua lified. The state also argues that since Patty was decide d, the community

corr ections statute wa s amende d to require that rese ntencingbe conduc ted pursuant to the sente ncing proce dures se t forth in Tenne ssee Code An n o t ated section 40-35-210, which provides that “[a]t the conclusion of the sentenc ing hear ing, the court shall first deter mine the appropr iate ra

ng e of sentenc e.” T.C.A. § 40-35-210( a). There fore
, the state argues, it was proper fo r t he tr ia l c ourt

to de te rm ine that the de fe nd ant qua lif ie d as a Ran g e I I of

fe nd e r a nd to s e nte nc e him

a c c o r d i n g l y.
We reje ct t he state’ s narr ow interpre tation of Patty . Under Patty , whether

a def endant actua lly qualifies for

a ra ng e diffe rent fr om that under whi ch he w as orig inally sentenc ed is not signific ant. Rather, the court he ld that upon revoking a community corr ections sentenc e and imposing a ne w sentenc e, a tr ial court “ is bound to sentence the defe ndant within the rang e of the orig inal sentenc e.” Pa t t y , 922 S.W .2d at 104 (e mphasis added) . The supre me cour t clarifie d that the “ ma ximumse nte nc e pr ov ide d f or the of fe ns e c omm itt e d, ” wh ic h is the tr ia l c ourt ’s lim it i n-5-

rese ntencinga def

endant unde r sec tion 40-36-106(e )(4) , is the max imum term in the sen t en ci ng rang e that the tria l court orig inally applied. Patty , 922 S.W .2d at 104; see a lso Bake r v. State, 989 S.W .2d 739, 741 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (stating that beca use the pe titioner was sente nced orig inally as a Rang e I

offe nder, “ [s] ince ther e is a max imum of t welve y ear s that may be imposed on any Rang e I offen d er co n v i cted of

a cla ss B fe lony , any

sentenc e over

twelve y ear s [after

revoc ation of his community corr ections sentenc e] would be illeg al”)

. Contrary to the state’s a

rg u m en t , t h e fa cts of Patty make it par

ticularly applicable to the pr e se nt c a se . A s in

the pr e se nt c a se , th e de fe nd ant i n Patty ple d guil ty

to h is of fe ns e s. Th e su

pr e me court in Patty

specific ally

soug ht to preve nt the injusti ce that would result if a de fenda nt, who had ag ree d to a plea ba

rg ain that included a

sentenc ing rang e and that wa s acc epted by the trial cour

t, was later g iven a se ntence outside the term for which he ba

rg ained. As the court stated,

I n th is case and oth e rs lik e it, the de fe nd ant a nd the State initially ag ree to the rang e into which the sentenc e should fall. More often th an n o t, they

ag ree also on the spec ific sentenc e to be

rec ommended to the trial c ourt and im posed upon the defendant. The State ’s re c omm e nd a tio n is ne arl y a lw ay s a c c e pte d by the tr ia l c ourt

. O n c e a c c e p te d
, a t l e a s t a s to r an g e , to p e r mi t a late r e n h ance ment bey ond the orig inal rang e violates the f undamental concepts of justice.

Pa tty , 9 22 S.W. 2d

a t 10 4 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . Wh ile it i s n ot c le ar f ro m th e re c or d in

the pr e se nt c a se whether the def endant’ s orig inal five-y ear sentenc e was part of his plea barg ain with the state, the parties do not dispute that his Rang e I classification wa s part of the barg ain. The trial c ourt ac cepte d the defendant’s Range Iclassification despite his purported prior c riminal rec ord. F or the de fenda nt now to be g iven a se ntence that exceeds that rang e would cause the exact ty pe of injustice that the supreme c ourt in Pa t ty

soug ht to avoid. Under Patty , the trial cour t was bound to rese ntence the defe ndant to a Rang e I

sentenc e.
Reg ardingthe state’s a

rg ument that Patty ’s holding is a ltered by the re cent amendment of section 40-36- 106(e) (4), we note t hat no appellate court in this state has addre ssed Patty since the lang uag e that “re sentenc ing shall be conducte d in c ompliance with § 40-35-210 ” was a dded in 2005. We hold that the addition of this languag e does not a lter the applicability of Patty

. Und er section 40 -3 5- 21 0( a ), to d e te rm ine a de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e , a tr ia l c ourt “ sh a ll f ir st d e te rm ine the a

pp ro pr ia te rang e of se ntence .” This does not, howe ver, g ive the tri al cour t any more powe r to alter a de fe nd ant’ s o ri g ina l se nte nc ingra ng e a ft e r r e vo kin g a

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns se nte nc e tha

n it wo uld have to a lter an a lrea dy

ag ree d-upon ra

ng e that wa s ac cepte d by the trial cour

t in any other circ umstance.

I nt h e p re s en tca s e, t h e ap p ro p ri at e s en t en ci n g ra n ge wa s R an ge I , b ec au s e t h at wa s t h e r an ge to wh ic h th e d e f

e n d an t p le d

g u il ty an d w h ic h th e tr ia l c o u rt o r ig in a ll y a p p li e d

. T h e ma x imum sentenc e fora Rang e I

offe nder c onvicted of a

Class C felony

is six y ear s. See T.C.A. § 40-35--6-

11 2( a ). Th e re fo re , th e de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e of te n y e ars e x cee de d th e ma ximumse nte nc e fo r h is conviction. Fur

thermore , insufficient information is contained in the re cord f or us to make a

de novo deter mination of the leng th of the defe ndant’s sentenc e. The re cord c ontains no prese ntence repor t or any indication that a pre sentenc e re port was pr epar ed, and it does not c ontain suff i ci ent information about the defe ndant’s criminal history

. Although the trial court made comments about the def endant’ s inadequate attempts to addre ss his drug pro b l em , o btain his GED, sec ure emp l o y m ent, and become a

productive me mber of soc iety , no evidenc e wa s prese nted at the

revoc ation hear ing to a llow us to determine whether these finding s are supported or what miti g ating

and e nh ancem ent factor s th e tr ia l c ourt we ig he d, in l ig ht o f t

he pr op e r s e nte nc ingpr inc ipl e s, in

rea ching its de termination. Be cause it doe s not a ppear that the trial court cond u ct ed a s entencing hear ing pur suant to the Sentencing Reform Act and the trial court did not state spec ific finding s of f a c t u p o n w h ic h it b a s e d th e s e n te n c in g p r in c ip le s , w e r e ma n d th e c a s e to th e tr ia l court for

re se nte nc ingwi th in the a pp ro pr ia te ra

ng e . Se e Er

vin , 9 39 S.W. 2d

a t 58 4 ( re mand ingc omm un ity

corr ections revoc ation case for rese ntencing
, stating that “[g]iven the state of the rec ord, this Court cannot c onduct the statutorily mandated de novo revie w of the ne w sentenc es.”)

Ba sed on the foreg oing a

nd the re cord a s a whole, w e re verse the judg ment of the trial c ourt sentenc ing the defe ndant as a Rang e I I o ff

en d er

. We remand the case for r esente ncing consistent with this opi nion.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, PRES I DI NG JUDGE